Senator Rand Paul and Senator Lindsey Graham Discuss John Bolton Removal…

U.S. Senator Rand Paul supports the removal of John Bolton as National Security Advisor due to an abject difference of foreign policy with Bolton.  Also, Senator Lindsey Graham cautiously supports the removal of John Bolton from a concessionary position that Trump is correct, and the endless foreign intervention needs to have some conclusion.

Beyond the orange-man-bad democrats, and their new found political love for Bolton (their former nemesis), interestingly the strongest DC and media voices against Bolton’s removal are foreign policy voices primarily concerned about supporting Israel (Ted Cruz, Mark Levin etc).

.

So far today CTH notes no-one is mentioning Bolton’s failed policy on Venezuela. That policy/effort was all John Bolton; ….and that brings another point into the picture.

Can you imagine what interventionist policy Bolton was starting to formulate surrounding Hong Kong?

Typical war-hawks like John Bolton, and those within the ‘industrial military‘ circle, do not value the more forceful use of economic strategy to accomplish national security objectives.  The economic approach is easily President Trump’s preferred weapon; and right now the biggest geopolitical confrontation is the U.S. -v- China.

Hong Kong is a part of the geopolitical dynamic; but it is a part President Trump is able to carve out from the larger issue.  No doubt the Bolton approach would have been to send troops in/around Hong Kong, eventually drawing a conflict with Beijing.  A person like Bolton would be exactly the wrong person in the game of economic chess.  In my opinion Trump’s China trade strategy is much better off without Bolton mucking it up.

Here’s Graham:

.

With Bolton gone, might we see Tom Bossert re-enter the administration?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, China, Donald Trump, Israel, media bias, President Trump. Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Senator Rand Paul and Senator Lindsey Graham Discuss John Bolton Removal…

  1. Dances with Wolverines says:

    To a layman like me, these truly seem to be perilous times.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Patience says:

      Why are Cruz and Levin so anti-Bolton’s removal?

      Liked by 1 person

        • JunkerGeorg says:

          Exactly. Trump represents more of a return to Paleoconservatism, with its more restrained interventionist view on foreign policy (whilst still always maintaining a sufficiently strong and deployable military defense.) Pat Buchanan has to be smiling. Of course, the NeoCons who ran the GOP since Bush Sr. will falsely label it “isolationist.” I think Rand and his dad have gotten through to enough of the GOP base voters that there are other and better alternatives to NeoConservatism for the GOP, while there are still some otherwise conservative politicians like Ted “Goldman Sachs” Cruz who are still enchanted by it when it comes to foreign policy (and monetary policy as well).

          Liked by 2 people

        • JunkerGeorg says:

          Exactly. Trump represents more of a return to Paleoconservatism, with its more restrained interventionist view on foreign policy (whilst still always maintaining a sufficiently strong and deployable military defense.) Pat Buchanan has to be smiling. Of course, the NeoCons who ran the GOP since Bush Sr. will falsely label it “isolationist.” I think Rand and his dad have gotten through to enough of the GOP base voters that there are other and better alternatives to NeoConservatism for the GOP, while there are still some otherwise conservative politicians like Ted “Goldman Sachs” Cruz who are still enchanted by it when it comes to foreign policy (and monetary policy as well).

          Like

  2. abstain says:

    Tom Bossert we hardly knew ye.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. A delightful cut-out from Sen. Graham’s video:

    “One thing […] I’ve come to learn about President Trump is that he’s unconventional – in a conventional way.”

    Aye … yes, he is.

    Liked by 19 people

  4. AlasPoorYorick says:

    Bolton has always been a warmonger.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. sickconservative says:

    I never liked that Bolton was there but seeing that he was the odd man out makes me feel better.
    Watched Tucker and think he agree’s.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ezpz2 says:

      Tucker has called Bolton ‘dangerous’ on more than one occasion. In fact, Tucker had the mustache on his show once. It did not go well —- for Bolton!

      Liked by 7 people

      • Eric French says:

        Yes, Tucker despised Bolton.

        Liked by 1 person

      • underwhelmingposter says:

        Those that disparage Bolton ought to do some serious reading about President Lincoln’s cabinet! He chose people for knowledge not by agreement or temperament. His philosophy was that he was challenged to gain their agreement. If not, he would consider the alternatives.
        George Washington had Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State, who disagreed with almost everything the President did and finally quit.
        Secretary Pompeo was somewhat correct in that PDJT should surround himself with people geared and ready to carry out HIS mission. What he forgot to state, was that open and honest dissension can lead to debates which clarify issues. A President should be open to that, but also has the right to do what he did. I hope that PDJT is not looking to have a team of sycophants surrounding him. It isn’t that Bolton was not extremely talented and knowledgeable, it was that he openly disagreed on issues of importance to PDJT.

        Like

        • Electra says:

          The Pres. has, in the past, defended Bolton with just that reasoning. He wants people on all sides of an issue advising him. But I suspect Bolton crossed a line. Maybe words were said that could not be taken back–maybe about Hong Kong?

          Liked by 4 people

        • ezpz2 says:

          It’s one thing to have a cabinet whose members have a broad spectrum of differing opinions.
          Even healthy. And it’s good to have them hash it out behind closed doors, away from the press, away from the public —- followed by zero leaks.

          It’s quite another thing to have an unelected cabinet member subvert his ELECTED boss, and sabotage the CIC’s plans for diplomacy via leaks ahead of planned meetings with which the cabinet member disagrees.

          Liked by 2 people

        • CountryClassVulgarian says:

          If you know anything about President Trump’s management style you’ll be aware that the last thing he does is surround himself with sycophants. He is known for having people on his team with different opinions. He listens to them all but in the end HE makes the decision.

          Like

    • ms doodlebug says:

      Thank God we now have a President who understands we can’t force other countries to conform to the way of life we cherish. It’s past time for the old war-horses to retire.

      Like

  6. TwoLaine says:

    People are talking about Pompeo doing double duty for both positions.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. Mike in a Truck says:

    Let’s try something off the wall crazy. How bout we stay home and spend our money here instead of running all over the globe making the world safe for democracy? Oh forget it- nutty idea anyway.

    Liked by 5 people

    • vikingmom says:

      How can you say something so heartless? Why, look at all the rip-roaring successes we’ve had! Iraq – oh, no, not that one…how about Libya? Oh, not that one either? Ummm, Venezuela is doing well, right? Oh, it’s not? Ummm, gosh, I’m sure all of those billions of tax dollars have benefited some one, right?! OH, right! Those poor public servants in Congress who have somehow become multi millionaires while earning $174,000 per year by passing massively bloated defense bills…yeah, it’s way past time to stop funding the Industrial Military Complex, NATO, The World Bank, The IMF, the United Nations, the WTO…need I go on?!!

      Liked by 17 people

      • cthulhu says:

        Oh, come now — there have been notable recent successes. Just look at Afghanistan *ulp!* or maybe over here at Syria *gah!* — at least things are trending well in Yemen [good choice, there’s normally nobody in Yeme- *yikes!*].

        Liked by 4 people

      • underwhelmingposter says:

        OK, just a thought experiment. Let us pull all the troops and close all the bases and ports around the world. We’ll save billions. Today! Even tomorrow. No NATO, no SEATO, no allies. Just us. We can build the infrastructure to a highly polished diamond. We can clean all the filth that surrounds us. We could even go green. We can even eliminate our military.

        Then China buys Venezuela, Brazil, Chile. Russia buys Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, all of Central America. Iran buys anything it wants to (no longer embargoes by anyone) and bombs anything that it wants to. Isis overruns Norther Africa. And then we are surrounded by friends? Europe regulates itself into oblivion. Russia absorbs the Baltic countries.

        Now what? This sounds like a plan to grow into a third world country.

        Liked by 1 person

        • vikingmom says:

          Total false dichotomy – this is not an either/or proposition and you are well aware that no one here is arguing for that.

          My statement, while obviously tongue in cheek, was simply that all of our overpriced “democracy building” efforts of the past 30-50 years have had very little success in doing anything but transferring vast sums of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of politicians, lobbyists, useless globalist organizations, and defense contractors!

          Like

    • JoeMeek says:

      I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
      – Dwight D. Eisenhower

      Liked by 14 people

      • Gotterdammerung says:

        That’s not the best quote from not the best guy. A rapid military shut down by France and Britain of Germany early on probably would have destroyed Hitlers credibility and his government. And Eisenhower was only too happy to play along with the Russians and surrender half of Europe to a tyranny every bit as horrible as the Nazis.

        Liked by 2 people

        • CNN_sucks says:

          Agreed. Patton is better. He saw it from the beginning. Russians not to be trusted. Ike was too “go along to get along” kinda guy. Too much deference to montgomery.

          Liked by 1 person

        • boogywstew says:

          Eisenhower had NO say so in how any European occupation zone was determined. That would be Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Attlee, DeGaulle and Stalin. Eisenhower answered to the US Commanders in Chief … Roosevelt and Truman.

          Liked by 6 people

          • Gotterdammerung says:

            Except he did. He was friends with Zhukov (which says a lot right there), was the one who decided to halt allied forces far short of Berlin, refused to move his armies into a position to counter the soviet movement into the Balkans. He opposed the use of nukes on Japan saying they were about to surrender, and then felt that peace could be maintained with Russia and the UN should be the main caretaker of world peace and nuclear weapons. Basically he’s one of the primary reasons that the post war world is such a mess (all those other names are to blame of course as well) but Eisenhower was a politician as well as a general and would fit right in with today’s progressive globalists. Patton may have been a crazy man but he was right about the commies and at least had the guts to call it like he saw it.

            Like

            • boogywstew says:

              Eisenhower had absolutely NO knowledge of the Manhattan Project … NONE … until Hiroshima was bombed. ! When Roosevelt died, Truman had to be informed of the atomic bomb. Zhukov was friendly with Eisenhower as I’m sure he was ordered to be but they were NEVER “friends”. Your “history” knowledge is completely made up nonsense. You misjudge Gen Patton. He was an American hero who would have rejected your kind. I know who you are and what you stand for by your username. Crawl back under your rock at Stormfront where you belong.

              Like

  8. dissonant1 says:

    I agree with everything Rand says here. Lindsay is starting to “talk nice” but can a Leopard truly change his spots? He has too much history for me to trust that he truly understands or supports a Trumpian foreign policy. I also believe that PDJT is playing it very cunningly and cautiously when it comes to one Lindsay Graham.

    Liked by 11 people

  9. visage13 says:

    I like what Rand said and I never thought of it that way about the “land” I think we should leave sooner rather then later,

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Steve in Greensboro says:

    I was shocked when the President brought Bolton on board and assumed he did so to placate critical Swampublicans. Very glad to see him gone and glad to see Mr. Trump feels secure enough to get rid of him.

    Liked by 9 people

  11. Bigly says:

    I liked John Bolton and think he served the position rightly at exactly the right time. I think it’s time for him to go only because trump needs new ideas constantly – he is too fast for most minds.

    I hope trump and Bolton remain close – trump needs information from all sides , everyone. He is sharpest when there are contrary opinions.

    Anyway, I think Bolton gets a bad rap. He’s a good man – aggressive, but why is that bad when all around trump are less so?

    We be good.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

      I’ve nothing personal against Bolton, except the fact he bats not an eye pushing for war(s) that makes the most sense longevity wise and financially to the MIC.

      Oh, and that little matter of putting our sons and daughters lives on the line to fulfill the mission 💰💰💰 ….other than that, he’s a swell guy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      Excellent point, Bigly. 100% agree (see earlier post re Bolton). Surround yourself with “Yes” men and you will never find yourself any wiser for it.

      Like

  12. visage13 says:

    Dang Lindsay was salty, I love it. The whole Alabama thing really?? These jackals just cannot let that go. TDS on steroids,

    Liked by 5 people

  13. What are the odds that with Bolton gone, General Flynn is cleared of wrong doing and could be reappointed as National Security Advisor?

    I’m sure it’s a long shot, but the timing is delicious!

    Liked by 9 people

  14. Janice says:

    Brett sure is scummy. I think Graham was good but i won’t turn my back on him.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Janice says:

    Cavuto oozes swamp doesn’t he?

    Liked by 7 people

  16. Listening to Sen. Rand Paul’s comments, I believe that he still regards “The Taliban™” as actually being “a conventional American Enemy.” In other words, a cohesive political force within their country which – as such… – can in fact “be bargained with,” with the actual expectation that any such “bargain” would in fact be binding.

    Another argument I’ve recently seen (by a political candidate who was also a Special Forces soldier in Afghanistan, so he’s credible …) instead compared them to gangs, such as the “Bloods” or the “Crips.” In other words, an amorphous enemy … fundamentally tribal in nature … which answers to no one.

    “Tribal” is very definitely a term that historically applies to these people. Until the British tried to “draw lines in the sand” following their WW1 defeat of the Ottoman Empire, these people naturally did not adhere to the western model of “nations.” And, even if we don’t want to go that far and we just want to call them “organized(?) criminals” or simply “gangs,” the bottom line may well be that we have no one to negotiate with.

    Hence – the observation by Trump, as he cancelled the peace negotiations, that the people with whom he was trying in good faith to negotiate “may not have the power.” I think he’s right.

    Liked by 11 people

    • dissonant1 says:

      There is a reason no one has ever “conquered Afghanistan.” Their is no single entity that can be called “Afghanistan.” It consists of tribes and groups within tribes whose motives and loyalty can turn on a dime.

      Liked by 8 people

    • RJ says:

      Keep in mind it was Rand’s neighbor who tackled him and hurt his chest, lungs, ribs, etc. more than a little. A next door neighbor for years who did not have general contact with Rand, a fellow doctor to boot! Therefore, Rand’s chops on foreign policy and his attitude toward Bolton just don’t ring true for me especially since his neighbor really didn’t like him as proven by his assault on Rand. Something doesn’t add up here.

      Bolton was sharp eyed, hard nosed, realpolitik in many ways. He is also a patriot. I like him, yet I have not “done business” with him, while Trump has. You gotta be able to do business with the boss, he didn’t, now he is gone. Too bad.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Rockindubya says:

        In a bar fight, I want a John Bolton on my side. That said, there are times (Now) that a little diplomacy “might” go a long way. My take is that he is/was All Hawk/All the Time.
        The issue of leaks is paramount.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KAR says:

        ‘Scuse me? Rand is wrong about Bolton because Rand’s neighbor didn’t like Rand? BTW, neocons aren’t “patriots” in my book. Neocons demolished the Middle East, creating chaos, ISIS, the immigrant crisis. All of this has backfired. Nope. I’d call it treason, the way the Bolton types destroyed innocent countries out of pure rage over 9/11.

        Liked by 3 people

        • That’s include Iraq…Saddam even as bad apple of Middle East-did not let Jihadists,MB and other terrorist beauties in Iraq and had cordial relation to Christians..His prime minister-Tarik Aziz been Catholic….

          Liked by 1 person

          • JC1974 says:

            Let’s not be too forgiving of Sadam and his wretched sons. He gassed dissenting populations of people. However, I agree in principle we shouldn’t lightly topple regimes with basically no game plan for the after party.

            Liked by 1 person

            • RJ says:

              Wait a minute: Bush went into Iraq with great intentions…in my opinion it was the fight between our Defense Department and our State Department that caused the end mess of no win, blood and treasure lost. Bush was not that smart, but others went about crippling our military to such an extent that the Peace Corps types in the State Department won but really lost because all they see are opportunities wrapped up in their dreams of “one world, one people” etc.

              Like

        • 55praises says:

          And 9-11 may have been a covert operation, stunningly enacted for hidden motives. My guess is to bring the Constitution to its knees with the passage of the Patriot Act. A lot of surveillance resulted, as we all now know, to our current president’s disfavor.

          https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/09/07/bombshell-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-on-9-11/

          Liked by 3 people

        • TreeperInTraining says:

          Bless you car.

          There is only one small point we disagree on. You assume Bolton was compelled by rage about 911. I’ll offer that he saw the rage of others as an opportunity to invade an ME country. Imho

          Liked by 1 person

        • George 1 says:

          Yes Kar. It was all fun and games for the neo-clowns since Iraq and Afghanistan. Yemen, Libya, Syria and other interventions. Now, Bolton and his neo-clown buddies want to go and take out Iran. That is where the rubber would meet the road but they are just too dumb to see it.

          If Iran is attacked they will use their shore based anti-ship missiles to stop oil shipping through the gulf. Worldwide recession or depression would ensue. The President understands this. The neo-clowns would ague that the Navy and Air Force would quickly be able to destroy all of the missile launchers. They really are very naive. For one thing those missiles do not necessarily need to come from just Iran.

          I have a friend who was a relatively high ranking naval officer who tells me that the Iranians would find many ways to stop oil transportation through the gulf. It would be a world wide disaster, says my friend who knows about such things.

          Like

      • PBR says:

        what does the attack have to do with Bolton leaving?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Have you been smoking something? You are making no sense….

        Liked by 3 people

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      Read a few books about Afghanistan and you will not think that the Taliban are feudal lords, you will know it. It is all about family and home turf (and survival). The big territory feifdoms are the strongest Taliban leaders. But the factions are so many, that even they guard themselves continuously. Every local leader is interested in the same thing Congress is interested in. That is keeping their positions and raking in whatever moolah they can. There never has been a total ruling Taliban Council that could come close to agreeing on anything. So it reverts back to feifdom. If Pakistanis come with money, they’re in. If Al Queda does, they’re in. If ISIS does, the same. If the Afghan government does, there will a (very) short term) peace agreement. The Taliban has no use for Government that is not of themselves, for themselves, or by themselves. And then comes the US of A. Give lots of money, help lots of people, build lots of stuff and get attacked as infidel occupiers.

      There is NO position of stength from which the US of A could negotiate from with the Taliban. Of course, with the Afghan government, it is only about the money.

      Like

  17. Davenh says:

    The nuclear walrus is dead! Long live the nuclear walrus….

    Like

  18. Pegon Zellschmidt says:

    Notice Bart Brarrs graphic of all the people who have left the administration. The first one is Sally Yates and including Comey and McCabe. FAIL Bart.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. KAR says:

    John Bolton was one of the original neocons long before Trump was elected. Glad to finally see him GO-O-O-NE!

    Liked by 5 people

  20. Johnny Boost says:

    Bolton’s firing probably has much more to do with the negotiations over Afghanistan and with the Taliban than anything to do with Hong Kong.

    I always figured Trump hired Bolton as part of a good cop/bad cop routine.

    Like

  21. Patience says:

    Tom Bossert would be quite a handless slap in da face. Like a bolt (on) lightening strike !

    Like

  22. A2 says:

    As for the speculation about what Bolton might push for re Hong Kong, he is on the record. No warmongering. Same position as State.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. A2 says:

    As for the speculation about what Bolton might push for re Hong Kong, he is on the record. No warmongering. Same position as State.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. KAR says:

    SunDance mentioned Bolton’s failed policy on Venezuela. Er . . . what WAS Bolton’s policy on V?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Trump nominated Bolton. Bolton was well known before then, surely even to Trump. It’s not like having Bolton as NSA Director was an accident.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. dakardii says:

    Bolton also wanted to start a war in Europe. If he had his way, we’d be dropping bombs on Turkey on behalf of Saudi Arabia, and we’d be dropping bombs on our own NATO allies for daring to respond to Turkey’s invocation of Article V. For Bolton, it’s all about protecting the petrodollar, even if it means supporting the same country responsible for the creation of both al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    Now I realize why McMaster was so reluctant to go after Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. He saw right through Saudi Arabia’s fake reforms. He understood that the Saudis were and still are the real enemy, and that Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are potential allies against the Wahhabbi menace. Too bad he was pushed out by a coalition of Saudi sycophants and useful idiots who think the Saudis can do no wrong because “Iran, Iran, Iran.”

    More and more info regarding these people’s treacherous behavior will come out over time. And when it does, the American people are going to want major retribution.

    Like

    • underwhelmingposter says:

      I have to leave this ridiculous thread! Where are the intelligent articulate and thoughtful posters that usually go to the treehouse.

      Like

  27. ezpz2 says:

    Thank you, Sundance, for bringing up Venezuela and Hong Kong.

    Maybe it was coincidence, maybe causation, maybe both, but it seemed to me that ever since Bolton came on board, many parts of the world seemed to become tumultuous – in a scary way.

    Yes, Venezuela. Of course, Bolton wanted regime change, and we may never know the extent to which he participated toward that end. I don’t doubt that See Eye Aye front groups were sent in with wads of cash to ‘incentivize’ rebels (rent-a-crowd).

    Syria….

    Afghanistan…

    And suddenly Hong Kong?

    Also, it seemed like the talks with N Korea started to go south (no pun intended) just around the time that Bolton came on the scene.

    The correlation could be coincidence, OR causation. I tend to think there’s just too much coincidence for comfort.

    Glad he’s out.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sherri Young says:

      Venezuela’s problems were in full bloom before John Bolton ever took the job. Maduro is a puppet dictator propped up by Cuba. His security forces and military brass are run by Cuba. Chavez before him was run by Cuba.

      Rent-A-Crowds don’t matter so much. What matters is who has the guns. The Venezuelans were disarmed under Chavez. Maduro is able to draw crowds because most of them are said to be government workers who sign in for Maduro’s rallies and receive lunch too.

      As far as i can tell, Bolton was totally ineffective in Venezuela. I think his association falsely raised hopes. Some of the people expected our special forces to go in and grab Maduro. That would have started a war with China, Russia, and Cuba — aided by Americans who buy the propaganda that our concerns about Venezuela are only about oil. PDJT definitely would have been impeached and the senate may have convicted. Sometimes stationing a bull at the doorway of the china shop does not work well.

      Like

  28. Devil in the Blue Drapes says:

    Say what you will about Rand, but I’ve learned more from him in committee hrgs about the waste in Afghanistan.

    As to Lindsey (btw way what time was this interview? It’s one of the few times I’ve seen him sober on TV).
    No, no and hell no to Brian Hooks.

    Lindsey best be careful lauding so much complimentary support on the President, the ghost of “he who shan’t be named” will visit him and haunt him in his dreams….at the very least Meghan will unleash a blistering “conservative tirade” even Joy Behar could agree with.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 🍺Gunny66 says:

      I believe this was also a long term decision by our President.

      What does Bolton think about peace with Russia?
      If he is the typical Neocon as stated, the last thing he would want is peace with Russia……..But……..

      Russia “hates China”……..For decades Russia have had conflicts.
      The final nail in the coffin for China…… and likely the EU will be if we made Trade Deals with Russia…….These deals would come “after” the election.

      Having a Summit with Russia would drive the Dems bananas.

      So as with all the other issues, I believe his issues with Russia may have come into play.

      Just sayin

      Liked by 2 people

      • fractionalexponent says:

        Especially trade deals involving U.S. grain. U.S. farmers need markets and Russia always need grain.

        And we need Russia strong to hold off China and Islam.

        Like

      • Dutchman says:

        Gunny,
        I fully agree re:Russia. Its why muh Russia was a two-fer; tar PDJT, AND keep him from making a deal with Russia, and against China.

        And so, since he couldn’t bring Russia in ‘at the begining, he’ll bring them in for the ‘kill’ shot. Works for me.

        Like

  29. graficgod says:

    yeah… senator talksalot makes comments with senator donothing. IMPRESSIVE!
    oust the careerists.

    Like

  30. JoeMeek says:

    John Bolton believes that if there is any doubt about having a war, let’s have yet another one.

    Like Donald Trump, Rand Paul believes that if there is any doubt about having a war, let’s not have yet another one.

    Liked by 4 people

  31. JoeMeek says:

    Correction:

    Like John Bolton, Lindsey Graham believes that if there is any doubt about having more war, let’s have yet more war.

    Like Donald Trump, Rand Paul believes that if there is any doubt about having more war, let’s not have yet more war.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. Texian says:

    The French abandon Indochina.. And the U.S. moves in..
    The Russians abandon Afghanistan.. And the U.S. moves in..

    WTF.. It can’t be the domino effect about stopping the spread of communism.. They can’t even stop communism in their own congress.. or In their deep state agencies.. or even in their offices..

    Let alone another country..

    Communism has already infiltrated American Government.. They’re embedded everywhere.. And they are not even trying to hide it anymore.

    They even tried to pull off a coup.. And they’re not done trying that yet either..

    See.. They can’t even stop communism in their own town.. in their own buildings.. in their own departments.. in their own minds..

    Let alone another country..

    Get out of Afghanistan.. And send the troops to retake Washington D.C.

    Liked by 8 people

  33. Cowboy79 says:

    I worked with State. Their collective, in your face, view of All Politics was : Presidents come and go, but we have Always been here, Always will be, and We decide every future.. They see themselves as Transcendent, above all time, above all people, above all things. They are the Masters. Simple Presidents are Simply Passing Through Their World. It was enough to gag a maggot. Enough. Bolton worked FOR the President. Either he is “on board” or not. Period. The People didn’t elect Bolton. Whatever PDJT decided was his Right to decide. Every Person in the Executive Branch serves “at the pleasure” of the President. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I wish Bolton well, but he did not, does not, and never will, bear the responsibilities of the President. That makes one heck of a difference.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Bill says:

      I’m born and raised DC/MD/NOVA. I’ve dated senate aids, DOD, DOJ and just about every other agency type women. The one from the state department was by far the most arrogant. You’re description of them is apt. She thought she was royalty. And the thing that always irked me was when I would stay over at her place (I was self employed and made my own hours at that time) and she would wake up after 10am and take her sweet time getting ready and then get to work just before noon. Then she would call me around 2pm and ask me what I was up to and if I wanted to meet her back at her place because she was done for the day. These people aren’t only narcissist, they don’t even work, yet take all our tax money and give themselves large salaries and constant raises.

      I hate the swamp. I’ve been living in it for 40 years.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Worked 10 years (work being a loose term here, as you point out) for State or Fed Government (not sure about municipal) and your student loan debt is forgiven.
        So, thats a $25,000-$100,000 bonus, and I’m not sure theirs an upper limit. A Doctor, fresh out of med school, who goes to work for VA or Indian Healthcare, a Law degree graduate who goes to work in FBI, DOJ or any of a host of agencies, gets, in effect free college.

        And of coarse after 10 years of such onerous work, with duch long hours for low pay//ss, why would they ever want to go to work in private sector, and who would want to hire them?

        Liked by 1 person

  34. Shyster says:

    As to Lindsey, the time tested adage is instructive: Keep your friend close and your enemies closer. Until Lindsey’s full motivations and loyalties – best friends with John McCain – are known and proven, best to keep him closer.

    Liked by 2 people

    • JoeMeek says:

      Graham was with McCain went he went to Egypt and tried to harangue the Egyptians into freeing Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptians wanted to put them both on trial for supporting terrorism and trying to destroy Egypt.

      MSM Blackout? Egyptians Enraged by U.S. Outreach to Muslim Brotherhood

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      PDJT did not bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran (for shooting down an unmanned drone). My conclusion, Bolton and any ‘warmongers’ don’t have undue influence on PDJT.

      Graham was working for months, before the recent spate of lone shooter shootings, on ‘National Red Letter Law’.
      IMHO, PDJT adroitly lanced that boil, and I don’t THINK Graham or the asshats in CONgress are going to persuade PDJT to sign away our 2A rights.
      So, Graham can kiss up to PDJT, and play golf with him, but PDJT recognises a synchophant and a snake when he sees one.
      USE him, but don’t TRUST him, which applies to 99.99% of the people in D.C.

      Like

  35. JoeMeek says:

    Don’t forget, Bolton supported the Vietnam War yet joined the Maryland Nation Guard.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. CountryDoc says:

    But Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said Bolton’s departure was a “huge loss” for the country. – From MSM.

    That’s all we need to know

    Liked by 4 people

    • CountryDoc says:

      And that was a knee jerk post. Many of those leaving POTUS circle have been good. There is much I respect about Bolton. There were times we pulled the trigger and we needed to follow through, and he was all out Sun Tzu — if we go to war, then go to war, dammit. I respected that about him. He was clearly disdainful about the hypocrisy of UN members, and I liked that about him. I believe he loves our country, and clearly was a part of the Trump team. So I thank him for his service. I do not think he deserves to be lumped with Romney.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. cheryl says:

    Good article about Bolton and Trump
    Bolton Likely Axed Over Taliban Deal, Leaks
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bolton-likely-axed-over-taliban-deal-leaks/

    Like

    • JoeMeek says:

      From the above link –

      “Yet the writing was on the wall for Bolton for some time, in part because he had a habit of leaking information to the press that would damage negotiations he didn’t agree with. The situation became so bad that Trump’s special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad reportedly refused to allow Bolton to leave the room with a copy of the nascent Afghanistan deal. That decision was followed by a flurry of pro-Bolton leaks and and anti-deal coverage in the press.

      Trump and Bolton long battled over several critical foreign policy issues including North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Trump liked to joke that Bolton is always hoping to enjoy a war somewhere, and many speculated that he might be Trump’s foil in negotiation proceedings.

      But in recent days, it appears Trump became frustrated with Bolton publicly contradicting him and scuttling his negotiations. Bolton opposed Trump’s face-to-face negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, backed an unsuccessful campaign to remove Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro from power, and promoted an aggressive stance towards Iran. The argument over the Camp David Taliban deal might have made their final break inevitable.

      Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who often clashed with Bolton, was asked at a Tuesday afternoon press conference if he was “blindsided” by Bolton’s firing. Pompeo responded, “I’m never surprised.””

      Liked by 4 people

  38. Graham talks about bipartisan support for an immigration deal if the Court rules that DACA is unconstitutional – which it will, because it is – and what that always, ALWAYS, means, is some form of AMNESTY.

    Amnesty means we have to give in to lawbreakers just because … they broke the law. Or their parents broke the law. And they are here. That is not a good enough reason. Another amnesty of any kind will only continue perpetuating the carrot that is drawing illegal invaders, it is exactly the wrong message to send.

    If President Trump is getting the wall built anyway, why must there be a compromise and condone all of this law-breaking?

    I know it is never going to happen, but if we lived in a just, fair, and sovereign country still, vast numbers of invaders would be permanently deported. And their anchors with them. Everyone who is paying attention knows that this failure alone will spell, is spelling, the end of the Republic. And it is rushing at us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • American Heritage says:

      Can we drop all the gratuitous platitudes about open borders, etc. There is nothing compassionate about allowing a world of invaders to crash our borders and squat here — at our considerable expense. It’s leftist warfare, using the flotsam and jetsam of the world as mercenaries in their war to destroy our country and displace our citizens.

      It’s anti-American aggression and that is war by any means. When do we start to seriously defend ourselves? Build the wall, close the border until further notice, deport illegals and no welfare for any non-citizens. Also, end birthright citizenship. The alternative is death to America.

      Like

    • Dutchman says:

      They don’t call him Gramnesty for nothing, but PDJT has that move in check, and Graham TRIED it already, during the DACA offer and shitehole negotiations, didn’t work.

      THEY (Graham and McConnell say “Fillibuster rule: we need Dem votes to get immigration reform passed. It has to be comprehensive, cause its too complicated to deal with ‘piecemeal’.”

      (Gee, traffic control seems MIGHTY complicated, what with commercial trucks, passenger cars, bycycles, pedestrians, wheel chairs and blind people all mixed in together, and questions of right aways, etc.

      And yet the traffic code was developed “piecemeal” and is comprised of 100’s or 1000’s of individual laws,..so this is a false premise, but I digress)

      “So, we have to ‘give’ Democrats something, in order to get what we want. Amnesty is what they want”

      (Another false premise, cause it is Graham and McConnell that want amnesty)
      “Fine (says Trump). I agree comprehensive, I want;
      End to birthrite.
      Mandatory e-verify
      End lottery
      End chain
      MERIT based immigration.

      Give me legislation with that in it, and I’ll be more than happy to TALK about amnesty.
      And they don’t come back, cause thats not what they meant by “comprehensive” at all.
      And he has only added to his list;
      Including legislative fix for only hold families 2 weeks, etc.
      They (Uniparty) will NEVER willingly write such legislation, not fir all the amnesty in the world.
      PDJT has them stumped, the ‘amnesty gambit’doesn’t work.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. A2 says:

    Everyone seems to be happy John Bolton is out. DPRK, China, Venezuela and former US Officials and Big Corp and investors who believe now the US will make a trade deal with China.
    🤣🤣🤣

    27 May 2019
    North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesperson on Monday condemned U.S.
    National Security Advisor John Bolton for recent remarks on the country’s recent missile tests, in comments carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

    Reported in the KCNA article as a response to a reporter’s question, the MFA spokesperson defended the missile tests as part of “normal military exercises,” and described Bolton a “war-fanatic” threatening peace on the peninsula.

    “Bolton deserves to be called a National Security Destruction Advisor who destroys peace and security, rather than a National Security Advisor working to guarantee security,” the spokesperson was quoted as having said.

    Venezuela’s socialist govt happy over removal of John Bolton
    BY JOSHUA GOODMAN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Posted Sep 10, 2019 5:36 pm MDT

    BOGOTA — A senior official in Venezuela’s embattled socialist government expressed delight Tuesday over the firing of U.S. national security adviser John Bolton, whose hawkish views and tough rhetoric were constant irritants for the region’s leftist leaders.

    The official said Bolton’s departure is particularly welcome given his role in the U.S. imposition of crippling oil sanctions and the almost daily attacks on social media aimed at socialist President Nicolas Maduro.

    “On days like this, the Comandate would treat himself to some sweet papaya,” said the official, referring to the late President Hugo Chavez’s preference for a traditional Venezuelan dessert.

    29 August, 2019
    China rebuked U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton’s comments on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said Wednesday, adding that he is not surprised to see Bolton’s attempt to sour China’s relations with other countries.
    https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/qwyw/rdxw/101491.htm

    US security head John Bolton would risk military conflict with China to achieve goals, former US officials say
    John Bolton would use military force to coerce compliance from China, which US President Donald Trump has painted as an adversary, the Post was told

    Zhenhua Lu
    Published: 9:15am, 11 Apr, 2018K

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2141183/us-security-head-bolton-would-risk-military-conflict-china-achieve-goals

    29 May 2019
    China rages against Bolton meeting with Taiwan as anti-invasion drills begin on the island
    The Chinese government has slammed Washington for engaging with Taipei and ordered the Trump administration to cease diplomatic engagements with the island, after a highly unusual public meeting between top officials from the US and Taiwan.

    In May, US national security adviser John Bolton met with one of Taiwan’s top defense officials, National Security Council Secretary-General David Lee, who was visiting the US. Taiwan’s official news agency CNA said it was the first meeting between the top security advisers of both governments since 1979, when Washington severed formal ties with Taipei.

    “We see very hostile activity by China on a range of military fronts on the East China Sea and South China Sea,” the ambassador said. “We see a tremendous buildup of their nuclear and ballistic missile and blue water navy capabilities, and we see a very determined form of mercantilistic economic policy internationally.”

    To counter Chinese aggression, Bolton introduced his strategy of using economic pressure.

    29 July 2019
    “Ultimately, national and political military power and its projection around the world rests on economic power,” he said. “So, the negotiations that have followed the imposition of tariffs have concentrated on what we would call structural issues: massive, persistent theft of American intellectual property by China, forced technology transfers, discrimination against American businesses and investors.”
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/victoriamarshall/2019/07/29/bolton-china-has-played-wto-like-a-fiddle-n2550413

    11September 2019
    Bolton’s exit raises odds of US-China trade deal
    The departure of the China hawk might clear the way for a trade-and-technology deal

    President Trump needs a trade deal with China as quickly as possible to avert a sharp slowdown of the US economy, as recent polls have made clear. There won’t be any deal unless the US finds some way to walk back its efforts to keep China’s top telecommunication firm Huawei out of world markets. The summary dismissal today of National Security Adviser John Bolton increases the prospects of a deal, although the immediate motivation for Bolton’s departure most likely lies elsewhere.
    https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/article/boltons-exit-raises-the-odds-of-us-china-trade-deal/

    Liked by 1 person

    • TruthnnnFreedom says:

      Always funny how easy people are influenced, even here.
      As if Bolton was deciding anything. As if Trump just implemented Bolton’s ideas like a dummy.

      Bolton was there as a big angry dog barking on Trump’s LEASH! Any ideas that Bolton himself turned HK , Venezuela or any other conflict worse is utter bullshit.

      Bolton was just another pawn in Trump’s chess game.

      Liked by 2 people

      • JC1974 says:

        I’m kind of surprised he survived after Mattis was ousted.

        Like

        • A2 says:

          He was DJT’s lightening rod. He took the heat, but got burned in the end. The CTH preferred metaphor, he was the dragon, and DJT could play the panda.

          Differences of opinion, especially over the Taliban meeting arranged at Camp David week before 9/11 seems to have been the tipping point. Probably other differences of opinion. Clash of personalities. Happened before. So I am not surprised.

          Let’s wait and see who DJT nominates as the next NSA. I suspect it will be another lightening rod, retooled to do the job, aka the exact same policy objectives.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Dutchman says:

        Don’t these people pay attention? Did the U.S. Bomb Iran, after they shot down an unmanned drone?

        O.k. then doesn’t that incident make it abundantly clear its PDJT who calls the,shots, or not shots, as the case may be?

        Agree Bolton was a pitbull, on PDJT’s chain, and both or them enjoyed the,discomfiture of all the global elitists, when PDJT brought him to meetings like the G-7.

        Its like they were concerned Bolton was gonna lift a leg and piss on the furniture,…or bite one of their legs off.

        It was fun, for awhile. This is beltway/media blather. Bolton had a ringside seat to History, and I envy him that.
        Thank you for your service, and for telling the U.N. ‘standing on the dock, waving good bye’.

        Like

        • A2 says:

          👍
          Good for you. You see the reality, not the endless partisan hype. If anyone can climb out of their self-imposed cognitive dissonance they would see that as before, DJT when he cashiered Tillerson and then did exactly what Tillerson advocated on NK, i.e talk to the bastards, or Gen Mattis who said, we need to stay in Syria at least for awhile and build good relations with our allies and partners around the world, which the President has done, on his own terms to be sure, are cases in point.

          General Mattis in his book did not skewer Pres Trump, but Obama whose fecklessness and incompetence in Foreign Affairs is now legendary. Why is that?

          No accounting for differences of opinions on how to achieve the US security and policy objectives. They are all human, and prone to differences. Some fall beside the wayside. But the policy objectives, as far as I have seen under this administration have remained the same.

          Like

          • Dutchman says:

            If I, an old ex con, jailhouse lawyer, recovered drug addict, etc. can see it, one would think anyone would be able to.

            Cognitive dissonance and denial are the explanation all right. None so blind ss those who WILL NOT see.

            PDJT said it during the campaign; reporters asked “WHO are your foriegn policy advisors going to be?”
            “And he said I am going to be my own”, (basically).

            “But the policy objectives, as far as I have seen undrr this administration have remained the same.”
            Yes, the consistency comes from PDJT. He is very clear and consistent in his goals, and very flexible in how he achieves those goals, and has no interest in phoney achievements for political optics.
            Oh, and its “some fall BY the wayside”, not “beside”.

            Like

    • piper567 says:

      A2, thanks for these links, and the opportunity to read the viewpoints of these Countries.
      Always a benefit, having your contributions and perspective.

      Like

  40. Someone posted before that PDJT listens to all sides and I believe in Bolton’s case the President tried some of his suggestions that didn’t pan out. When PDJT wanted to try alternative means, I believe Bolton pushed too hard against him. Never forget who the boss is. As someone else pointed out when you work for someone, you have a shelf life. Bolton reached his expiration date.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. wtd says:

    Just yesterday, I came across a video interview by Crowdsource-the-truth’s, Jason Goodman, discussing Bolton’s links to Iran’s MEK with Lee Stranahan.
    I wasn’t familiar with this and find Bolton’s connection to MEK quite disturbing.

    Iranian opposition Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK) – stands for the peoples mujahedin, a marxist jihadist cult entity
    Lee Stranahan discusses Bolton’s attendance at Iranian Marxist event
    1:05 “MEK” https://i.imgur.com/0ehhY9V.jpg

    This event is discussed online with photo standing at podium with MEK flag to his right here:

    Here is Bolton seen with the flag to his right . . .Indictment Of Iran For ’94 Terror Bombing Relied On MEK

    Liked by 1 person

    • A2 says:

      NYT is an Iran apologist. just read some of their reports.
      They have no credibility on that subject, oh, and the DPRK, and oh, on China except for the fact that the Hong Kong debacle presents them with a cognitive dissolve problem.

      Like

  42. Sean Supsky says:

    Don’t trust either one of those two congress critters. Both have had plenty of opportunity to stand by President Trump, yet they have failed in times when it most mattered.

    While their words are sweet, they are still considered snakes like the rest of congress, save for a for a few.

    Yet, with that being said, even an enemy can be an ally under the right circumstances.

    Hence the saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Our greatest threat is the DEEP STATE that’s overseen the embedding of Communists and Islamists into ALL of our Government Agencies and Institutions.

    IMO, President Trump’s organizational moves will soon be addressing the threat … both DIRECTLY and INVISIBLY.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Sean Supsky says:

      I think that as well, BKR

      Liked by 3 people

    • CountryDoc says:

      Ponderings:
      Where is organization central, and tracks of their coordination?
      What common idealogic goals to communism and islam share? They seem to be different populations with different goals and would seemingly not help each other but be opposed? So why would the deep state be the author of embedding communists and Islamists? I am not doubting you, but trying to understand the motives of the enemy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • fractionalexponent says:

        Deep state, communists, and Islamists all want to end our freedom and dominate or eliminate us. That’s what the have in common.

        Like

        • Dutchman says:

          Countrydoc,
          FE gives it in a nutshell, and I agree;
          Expanding a little; its confusing if you get caught up in BELIEVING the ideology, or believe that the practitioners, AT THE TOP LEVEL, believe their ideology; they don’t.

          CONmunist leaders in the old Soviet politoburo, or CCP aquire immence wealth; obviously they don’t REALLY believe in even distibution.

          IRAN muellahs also aquire immence wealth, they don’t live according to what they preach.

          Either ideology is a CON for the masses of useful idiots, and for the ‘hard core believers’ that do most of the work.

          But, at the top they know its all b.s. a con used to aquire power and be in a position to aquire immense wealth.

          And so, the ideology can be flexible, whatever it takes to manipulate the useful idiots into doing their bidding.

          Hence no contradiction between an alliance between islamists, who want their religion to BE the government, and Conmunists, who want the government to be the religion.

          Just coming to the same end place, from opposite directions. Brennan is both a moslem and a conmunist, and apperently sees no contradiction. AND, he’s deep state.

          Like

      • From their perspective:
        “The enemy of their enemy is their friend.”

        Like

    • piper567 says:

      BKR, I pray you are right.

      Like

  44. Mr bandwagon says:

    Economic war is preferable to mass slaughter war, and real war is so bad for the climate change , Trump’s America

    Like

  45. ilcon says:

    Bent Bare is a COMMUNIST

    Like

  46. MAGADJT says:

    I wouldn’t say that Bolton is a bad guy. He is a believer in military might as a solution to problems. I’d say he and POTUS just didn’t see eye to eye, and that is that. It happens.

    Like

  47. Sean Supsky says:

    Just like with all things relating to President Trump, John Bolton served a purpose and a function. Once his job was completed, there was no longer a need for him to be there.

    We can speculate all we want. He said this, the other one said that, in the end, they are both right, according to what has been heard. Bolton put in his resignation. President Trump asked for his, Bolton, resignation. Both statements can be true at the same time.

    Not really something to quibble over, unless they sue one another….then it becomes an issue.

    Like

  48. ezpz2 says:

    Just now watching Tucker via screen.

    Colonel Douglas McGregor is brilliant!

    I would love to see him serve the President and by extension, USA and the world, in some capacity!

    Like

  49. Sherri Young says:

    In case anyone missed Rand Paul’s allusion to a $40 million-plus gas station in Afghanistan, here is a C-SPAN clip from last year.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4713861/afghan-natural-gas-station

    https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-rand-paul-decries-43-million-spent-build-gas-station-afghanistan

    (Thank You Dear Lord that the Obama legacy is dying.)

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s